tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 02 06:13:24 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Klingon math, et al
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: Klingon math, et al
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 18:09:10 -0400
- In-Reply-To: "William H. Martin"'s message of Tue, 2 Aug 94 13:41:50 EDT <[email protected]>
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 2 Aug 94 13:41:50 EDT
>According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>>
>> >charghwI'vo'
>>
>> I'm not going to comment on the math stuff yet; too much there to digest
>> for now.
>I will await your thoughts.
>[stuff about {-lu'} requiring an object]
>> Not quite true. "-lu'" need not imply an object. It only implies that the
>> *subject* is indefinite. You can have an indefinite subject and no object.
>> It's basically like replacing the subject with "vay'". Indeed, we have
>> canonical evidence: in TKD, in the phraselist, we have "quSDa[q]
>> ba'lu''a'?" (typo: there's a Q instead of a q). This is given as "Is this
>> seat taken?" Literally, it's "Is someone/something sitting in the seat" or
>> even "Is it being sat in the chair?" Sanskrit, which has a real passive,
>> has no problem saying things like "In the forest it is happily lived by the
>> hermits". Don't mistake indefinite subject for a required object.
>There is nothing in 4.2.5 of TKD that suggests that there are
>any options for {-lu'} besides vI-, Da-, wI-, bo-, lu- or the
>null prefix, by example indicating third person singular
>subject and object. All of these prefixes grammatically
>indicate third person singular object, and by the grammatical
>requirements of Klingon, all of them indicate a subject. The
>function of {-lu'} reverses the roles of subject and object and
>turn the third person singular object into the indefinite
>subject.
Nor is there anything to indicate that you *can't* use a null-prefix for
no object. All it says is that "[t]hose prefixes which normally indicate a
first- or second-person subject... are used to indicate a first- or
second-person object." Why does that mean that a prefix which normally
indicates a third-person subject can't still do so? Or get reversed the
same way (leaving me with the same prefix anyway)? Why does this imply
that it can't be used?
"-lu'" doesn't reverse the roles of subject and object. "-lu'" is *NOT* a
passive voice. It's an indefinite subject marker. It is for this reason
that Okrand calls it an "indefinite subject" marker and not a "passive
voice" marker. In fact, he's very careful in explaining the meaning to
stress that there *is* a subject: an indefinite one.
>To leap from this to talk about the use of the null prefix with
>the {-lu'} suffix to indicate an indefinite subject and no
>object is quite a leap. What it means is that before the magic
>of {-lu'}, that verb has no subject. I would think that this
>would be a stark enough exception to the general grammar that
>Okrand would have mentioned it SOMEWHERE.
No, it never meant that. It means that before "-lu'", the verb has no
object. After "-lu'" it still has no object, but an indefinite subject.
He only said that the first- and second0-person prefixes reversed; not that
the third- did. Read it again.
>As for the example in the phrase list, there were TWO typos --
>both the wrong case on the Q that you pointed out and also a
>space thrown into the middle of the word {ba'lu'}. My own
>conclusion is that either Okrand came up with it when he was
>pulling an all-nighter rushing to make a publishing deadline,
>or Maltz had been hitting the Romulan Ale a little hard when he
>said something that Okrand didn't understand. Putting a lot of
>weight on an example of something that no Klingon in his right
>mind would ever say in the FIRST place, which has TWO typos in
>it and marks a radical departure from the grammar given in the
>book, ... gee. I don't know. That seems to be a far enough
>reach that I don't feel uncomfortable questioning the validity
>here. I respect your opinion a lot, and that of Krankor, who
>also has pointed to this example as evidence of the same
>grammatical trait.
It sounds like circular reasoning to me. "You can't trust that, no
Klingon in his right mind would say that." "But Okrand said it. He's our
informant, so it must be okay." "Yeah, but this was a different case. He
didn't mean it." "How do you know?" "Because no sane Klingon would say
it!" "Isn't this where we came in?" Basically, you're pitting your
instincts against Okrand's (and mine, but that doesn't count). Nothing
personal, but I'm inclined to go with the creator of the language.
>It still seems like very poor form to me. This is the kind of
>thing that I REALLY wish Okrand would come clean on. I really
>wish he would make a statement clarifying this once and for
>all. As it is, it is just sloppy and vague.
I don't know; it's pretty clear to me. And it makes sense, to boot.
>"Is this seat taken?" indeed! Next, we'll be translating,
>"Would you be so kind as to hold my place in line while I go to
>the powder room and freshen up?" or "Have a nice day."
Not at all. This isn't social nicety, it's a legitimate question of fact,
one any tourist or even Klingon citizen would need to ask. You don't want
to take the captain's place at the table!
>> >charghwI'
>>
>> ~mark
>>
>> yInlIj DayInlaHchu''a'? pe'vIl DayInlaH'a'? bIqu'Ha'taHvIS DayInlaH'a'?
>> nIQ DaSopmeH chab DaSop 'e' DanajlaH'a'? jIHvaD neH cha'nay' tIn tu'lu'.
>>
>I'm sure this is a quote from something. I follow it up to the
>last sentence, and then you lose me. "There are two big dishes
>(courses of a meal) only for me." Is the idea that the listener
>is supposed to whip out his betleH and challenge you for the
>food?
Hee. It's a line from a song that was running through my head a lot. I
don't expect it to be recognized... Think of "nay'" as "portion".
>charghwI'
~mark